Instigator / Pro
15
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#3120
The term 'rat' for a snitch/traitor is significantly unfounded, whereas 'snake' is well-founded.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 25,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
35
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
No trolling kritik semantics shit.
Round 1
Forfeited
I find it surprising that this is the first time I had an opportunity of debating RM on this account, and I haven't done this for about a year.
Nevertheless, Framework.
1. BoP
According to the ways of this website or the structural integrity of the debating system for the last few millennia, the Burden of Proof rests on Pro[1] which is the person making the statement.
2. X, but not Y...
The resolution is split into two parts.
- The term Rat does not have a well foundation of representing a snitch/traitor
- The term Snake does have a well foundation of representing a snitch/traitor
Pro has to uphold both claim, while Con only needs to make sure that either one of the two is disproven.
3. Definitions
Defining terms without having personal feelings altering the definitions would not be trolling or a semantical kritik. In fact, the definitions given in this section would probably be agreed upon. To abide to the rules, I will give in-place, in-scenario definitions.
[a]SNITCH: One who Snitches, Tattletale
[a1]TATTLETALE: someone (such as a child) who tells secrets about what someone else has done
[b]TRAITOR: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
[c]WELL-FOUNDED: : based on excellent reasoning, information, judgment, or grounds
("SIGNIFICANTLY UNFOUNDED" would mean the complete opposite, Not based on excellent reasoning, evidence, etc.)
The terms "rat" and "snake" have no obligations to be defined as their utility or ability of representing ideas is the main point of discussion today, not its academic definition.
Argument 1: Rat
It is only needed to disprove that the term "rat" representing a snitch/traitor is poorly-founded. Might as well say that once there is evidence, it is impossible to deny that they exist.
[2]WikiDiff has listed "Rat" and "Snitch" as synonyms. Although as nouns the site listed the most commonly-known definition, literally an animal, the verb definition of "rat" would be much more similar to the definition of "traitor", with the only difference being that it is the verb equivalent, or "to betray".
[3]Merriam-Webster has listed such definition for Rat, as a noun.
Rat(2)
: a contemptible person: such asa: one who betrays or deserts friends or associates
In this case, even in the noun state, the synonyms contain these words:
Synonyms for ratSynonyms: Noun
Of those, most of the words are synonyms to "Snitch" and "Traitor", with "Snitch" being one of them. You can click on them to see the true definitions, trust me.
Then in the page of Snitch, Rat was listed as a synonym[4]. It goes both ways.
[5]Rats are historically being represented as backstabbers. There is no correlation between rats being loyal in real life and rats being represented as traitors. I have seen the movie Ratatouille, does that mean rats could cook dinner for me?
Overall:
- Rats are historically being represented as backstabbers.
- "Rat" and "snitch" are, by definitions, considered as synonyms, which is no poor foundation.
- Thus, it is false to say that the term "Rat" representing a snitch/traitor is poorly founded.
- Thus, Pro's statement is currently proven false and Con has the upper hand.
Sources
Framework Definitions
Argumentation Sources
Round 2
Forfeited
Rebuttals
None, Pro forfeited. Unless some special circumstances made me forfeit as much as Pro did, as of now, it is just to vote Con for conducts.
Backup Sources
An authentic database of snitches has called the snitches “rats”. Such “rats” may include traitors of police agencies and spies.
The ancient Chinese from approximately 2500 years ago has called corrupt officers “large rats”, and the corrupt officers are, in a sense, betrayers or traitors, by not fulfilling their obligated duty of supply the masses with abundance.
And that is supported by a definition of “traitor” from MW, linked a round prior.
1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty.
2: one who commits treason.
The expression not only existed in ancient China, but western culture as well. The expression started at 1819 in a work of literature, a metaphor, then in1859 the expression is officially recognized. By the 1950s, the term has been fully integrated into popular culture in the US that gang members starting to draw connections between “rats” and “traitors” instinctively and naturally.
A Mafia organization has called its snitches “rats” too.
The consensus has used the term “rat” in replacement of “snitch”, implying that the term itself is accepted by society, with is not a lack of foundation at all.
One more law enforcement website to call snitches “rats”.
The popular culture has accepted the term “rat” as a synonym for “snitch”, and a rap song about the two being identical in essence just proves the point even more.
There are many quotes about snitches and rats. It shows that society knows the similarity between snitches and (conceptually) rats, and that shows that society has a foundation of using the term “rat” in this way.
Conclusions
● The eastern and western culture have both been using “rat” to represent traitors and/or snitches.
● Society has accepted the term “rat” as a synonym for “snitch”, and has been using it for decades.
● The law enforcement admits that Snitches and rats are identical in essence.
● In conclusion, with the foundation of history, popularity, definition-correctness, etc.… it is inaccurate to say that the term “rat” being used as “snitch” or “traitor” is unfounded.
● As a result, Con still has the upper hand. Vote Con.
Round 3
i can't be bothered, I actually genuinely think I have grown tired of formal debating not even temporarily, idk what's happened, it's just become a bore for me.
Pro has essentially conceded the debate. Con has evidence-based arguments. Vote Con.
Round 4
Forfeited
Conclusions
- "Snitch", "Traitor" and "rat" are accepted as synonyms by modern dictionaries
- "Rat" have been historically portrayed as snitches
- "Rat" have been used in place of "snitch" for both the law enfocement and greater society
- "Rat" being a synonym of "traitor" has rooted from old cultures both in the east and west
- These, above, are solid evidences with Pro refuting none of them
- S1: In order for the resolution to be proven by Pro, it must be proven that "rat" being used for "snitch" or "traitor" is not of solid and authentic proof(unfounded)
- S2: Con has proven that "rat" being used for "snitch" or "traitor" is of solid and authentic proof(well-founded)
- C: The resolution is proven false, Pro is false. Please vote Con.
thank you for reading.
Bump, vote please
Now nothing, rats are loyal and not backstabbing creatures.
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-cultural-history-of-the-rat
Now what?